87 comments:

America's sins will never be forgiven until there is no more extortion money available.I suggest we give them double Sky Miles and a travel brochure for beautiful Zimbabwe so that they will feel better about being born here when they get back home.

I went to the article, and in addition to the tiresome rewrite of history, he seems to think it's absolutely critical to limit our speech based on his rewrite. And also to punish anyone who's ever used the speech he wants to forbid.

Have some sympathy. The poor guy doesn't get paid if he doesn't write something, so there it is. Words in a row. I don't think he really cares all that much about the stupid mascot, if you get right down to it.

Whatever other criticisms you want to make of white people - for slavery, etc - at least we did one really good thing: we brought diversity to the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Think about it: before we came there were just indigenous people here! Living their sterile little unicultural lives without the soul-satisfying enrichments of multicultural and multiethnic diversity. What kind of meaning could there have been in their lives for all those centuries before us, when they were ignorant of the many foods, styles of music, languages, and cultural norms of the rest of the world? Pathetic! And then we came, by the millions, and brought others of many cultures with us by the millions, and introduced the indigenous people to so very many wonderful things.

And now the indigenous people on their reservations have so many things their ancestors never did: they can go to Taco Bell, they can listen to hip hop music, and get all sorts of liquor real cheap.

So blame us for the bad things, but give us credit for introducing multiculturalism into the Americas! As the situation of the Native Americans teaches us, good things happen when foreigners arrive by the millions!

I think there are far more important issues to be worried about but I do think its offensive to use a caricature of a Native American as a mascot for a football team. The team isn't deliberately ridiculing Native Americans but its not honorific in any way. And its nothing like the Vikings or the ND Irish. Those are honorific because they are mascots for an area settled by Scandanavians and a school that is mostly Irish Catholic. And worst of all, the team sucks.

Joseph...See it the way you want to, but the tribes of native Americans were savage and courageous fighters...Braves. Until Adam Lambert's day that was considered a high complement among the men savagely playing sports games with other men in America. It was the equivalent of calling themselves Navy Seals or Special Forces. But by all means feel bad about it if it makes you feel a special vintage guilt. There was a terrible robbery of lands carried out against the the tribes Colombus called "Indians".

The prehistoric Southwest, long known as home to the "peaceful Pueblo Indians" was racked by (intertribal)war. . . going back to a 1,000 years BC. And much more in his book.

There were no peaceful tribes prior to or after the entrance of Europeans: The various tribes never lived together in harmony and mutual respect, no more than the Neolithic cultures of Europe, Asia, or Africa coexisted without desperate and punishing conflict. Societies among the Indians and all other aboriginal peoples conducted devastating wars against one another that at times became struggles for domination, conquest, replacement, or even extermination."The 10 Big Lies bout America", pages 34 - 35.

Times change. Their mascot is obsolete. It no longer seems right and proper to use ethnic names for teams. And this includes the Vikings and the Celtics. It's extremely rare for a Norwegian or Irish person to ever start for those teams. It just seems stupid. The Brooklyn Dagos, the Bronx Hymies, the Milwaukee Krauts. If we are going to honor some ethnicities, shouldn't we honor all.....I've never understood how Cleveland has been able to keep their blatantly steretypical mascot all these years......OK, there are more important issues, but Washington's inability to negotiate around this trivia does not signify competence in other areas.

"...that was considered a high complement among the men savagely playing sports games with other men in America. It was the equivalent of calling themselves Navy Seals or Special Forces."

Granted, it's still a caricature that ignores the broad reality of any people group that includes not only "braves" but also "whiners" and "doofuses" and "cowards."

Still... the thing is that there have been really horrible things done to Native Americans, and not that long ago. After the wars and mass killings were "Indian Schools" and later than that, sterilizations done by bleeding-heart do-gooders on teenage girls without consent or even informing them.

None-the-less... fussing until sports teams stop using Native American references and mascots will not IMPROVE public knowledge of these things.

If nothing else, "trivial" or not, it works to make Native Americans visible in our popular culture. The alternative really is invisibility if you live anywhere that Native Americans are not locally prominent.

I'm thinking they could steal a page from the Packers and call themselves the Washington Spenders. Green uniforms with dollar signs on the helmets. The headlines practically write themselves: overcome early deficit; last quarter fumbles; flair plays. The sportswriters would bless their name every game they went to.

"The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a lawsuit arguing that the "Redskins" trademark violates standards of decency."

There are standards of decency that are the business of SCOTUS, now? How does this work?

Also, told from a different perspective, I think that this would be a very sweet story. Nice, old man, a little quirky, doing what he loves, even though most would find it odd. How can you dislike that?

On the shore of AhagotchaBy the shining big-sea water.Stood and indian feller Named, ooooh,A mighty warrior named Pokahotpot.

He who reads the leaves there floatingFloating on the big-sea waterFallen from the trees above himAs the wind through them had spoken

Warrior Pokahotpot read themMighty Pokahotpot read themRead the leaves that lay there floatingBlown from trees that clearly spokenSpoken of the end-times coming. Spoken of the mascot wearyAn old mascot who retires.

Seasons change and so do sport fansChange the sport fans and the mascotTime to change the tired mascotTime the fans retire mascotHall of Fame dream days are finishedCede the tomahawk and headdressHang the costume on a peg.

The only people I know who say anything but “Indian” and “Eskimo” are the Professional Native Americans who make their living being outraged.

With regard to the “Native American” versus “American Indian” controversy, you're quite correct, not only for the individuals you know, but for Indians across the country generally.

As this Census Dept. document reveals (pdf), a poll conducted a bit over a decade ago of folks reporting themselves as American Indians (of whatever name) reveals that a strong plurality, nearly a majority (49.76%), prefer the term “American Indian” over “Native American” for themselves, while a smaller minority (37.35%) prefer the latter designation (see Table IV on page 18).

Thus, those who really believe that peoples should in general be called whatever they want to be called, will embrace American Indian in lieu of Native American.

As far as “Eskimo” vs. ”Inuit” is concerned, while all the Eskimos of Canada and Greenland are Inuit (and where “Eskimo” is often regarded as being pejorative), the same can't be said for the Eskimos of Alaska.

The term “Inuit” refers to the Inupiat people of the general Eskimo family, and in Alaska the Inupiat traditionally inhabit only the far north of the state (and points east from there), while the Eskimos of the west (including easternmost Siberia), central and southern Alaska are either Yupik or the related Aleuts. Nor is the use of “Eskimo” in Alaska (or the U.S. for that matter) considered pejorative.

(My sister-in-law, by the way, and thus my nieces and nephews and all the their descendants are Chippewa, aka Ojibwa, Indians, though the later generations possess too low a proportion to be official members of the tribe.)

The Native Americans were as cruel and land-hungry with each other as the Caucasians were with them. Think Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas. But when the Caucasians won, they didn't eradicate the losers, like often happened in the past. And now, in the day of PC, the most recent "winners" have to be apologetic, while groups who were previously "winners" can be the victims.

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a lawsuit arguing that the "Redskins" trademark violates standards of decency.

I hope they reject this nonsense on it's face and with prejudice. But oh no, we can't defame that wondrous of peaceful peoples, The Noble Savage. Can we? Oh what will we do? Just to throw a bomb into the mix. Since homosexuals co-opted American Black Slavery as a cultural rallying point of equating their struggle during the homosexual marriage debacle with that of American Slavery, I wonder how long it will be before they bareback their way onto American Indian struggle too. I mean, after all they just want to be included and recognized as a repressed minority, no?

First of all, "Courtland Milloy" should shed his slave names (two surnames?) and replace it with something authentically African, like Kwame Uhuru or something.

Second, why deny a sick old man his heart's desire? Here, Milloy is being both ageist and healthist by dwelling on Chief Z's age and infirmities.

Third, who is to say that Chief Z is not part Native American? A fair amount of intermarriage between blacks and Indians has been well-documented.

Finally, the name "Redskins," like the names Bears, Lions, Giants, Vikings, etc. alludes to the fearsome strength and fighting spirit of their namesakes. Nothing about the NFL suggests mockery or denigration of the original nameholders. Now, if a book club or knitting circle adopted the name, "Redskins," that would be different.

A hugh caveat: One of the cheerleaders I talked to is married to a Marine currently in Afghanistan - a lovely, articulate lady. She and her husband represent everything that is wonderful about this country!

I don't understand how Chief Zee trivializes slavery - is it merely the fact that he's black, or is it because he is old and black, or some other combination of factors that invokes our tragic slave past? He just tosses that line out there but - unless I am missing something - says nothing to justify or support it.

If given a choice between lending their fearsome image to a football team and having their pitiful victimhood discussed in doleful tones on All Things Considered, I wonder what those courageous warriors of times past would choose.

As I pointed out in the comments to Milloy's article, one of the possible theories as to how the Redskins got their name in the first place was that the team started out in Boston, as the Braves (the football counterpart to the baseball Braves, who would move to Milwaukee and now hail from Atlanta). The two Boston teams, according to this theory, took their names from the colonists who dressed up like Indians during the Boston Tea Party.

Generally team names are based either on fearsome fighters (so the team can emulate such warriors) or something else people take pride in (Packers = meat packing). I fail to understand how that's demeaning.

There were no peaceful tribes prior to or after the entrance of Europeans

I'm not sure about that. The Mapuche women I worked with in Chile told me that Mapuche men never beat their wives -- didn't even know how to make a fist -- until the white folks showed up.

Is this a joke? There are men on earth who "didn't know how to make a fist" and somehow they weren't wiped out by other tribes some time in the last several millenia?

I guess it's just too perfectly in line with the left-wing narrative about white men NOT to be true - the innocent, sweet native peoples who couldn't even make a fist until the white man taught them to hate.

I'm almost certain that several of my ancestors in the last 4,000 years were probably enslaved against their will ... and probably more than once.

And no one ever named a Football Team after us!

And Where's MY reparations?

African-Americans and American Indians have no idea how fortunate they truly are: the White Man's Burden is still with us; only now instead of bringing civilization and God to you, the task has been to infantilize you, and move you onto the reservation/plantation of the mind, and the government cheese line. All so that you may be further exploited under the guise of benevolence, and in the name of 'diversity'.

Talk about forests and trees! Someone needs to step back and see the bigger picture here.

Sports teams should be named to honor the most vivid aspect of the place they represent. Thus the Utah Jazz should become the Utah Polygamists and the Washington Redskins should become the Washington Assholes.

I still have this radical idea: Let's shed racial/ethnic identity politics completely and call people by — brace yourselves — their names.

And Michael McNeil responded:

So, American Indians, right?

Nope, I meant their individual names, as in I'd call you "Michael" and you'd call me "Kev" and screw all the group identity thing.

(Granted, there are still a few ways that group identities can be used towards a positive end--i.e. as a McNeil, you're probably part irish; I am as well, and we could celebrate that by quaffing a green beer on St. Patrick's Day. But if either of us, say, tried to demand reparations for our Irish ancestors getting screwed over when they first got to this country, that's where the wheels fall off this whole group identity business.)

Chase, yeah, I just rolled my eyes when I heard that (re men didn't know how to make fists until we white people ruined everything). It was all part of the "Life would be perfect if you white people weren't here" narrative.

Yeah. They wouldn't be fighting the Incas. They would have conquered human nature (look! no fists!) and lived in perfect harmony with each other and their neighbors.

It's all the white folks' fault that the Mapuche men drink and beat their wives.

The Mapuche were so vicious that the Spanish never conquered them, even though the Spanish had superior technology. From Wikipedia: "aldivia offered as a ransom for his life that he would evacuate the Spanish settlements in their lands and give them large herds of animals, but this was rejected and the Mapuche cut off his forearms, roasted and ate them in front of him before killing him and the priest[5]. Pedro Mariño de Lobera also wrote that Valdivia offered to evacuate the lands of the Mapuche but says he was shortly after killed by an vengeful warrior named Pilmaiquen with a large club, saying Valdivia could not be trusted to keep his word once freed[6]. Lobera also says that a common story in Chile at the time was that that Valdivia was killed by giving him the gold that the Spaniards so desired; however, the gold was molten and was poured down Valdivia's throat[6]. According to a later legend, Lautaro took Valdivia to the Mapuche camp and put him to death after three days of torture, extracting his beating heart and eating it with the Mapuche leaders."